I don't think that Nichiren was telling people to ignore Sukhavati. His axe to grind was against Honen, the founder of the Jodo-shu sect (Honen acknowledges he founded a new school of Buddhism in his seminal Senchakushū), who he believed was leading people away from the Dharma with an undue emphasis on Nembutsu, reciting the name of Amitabha Buddha, Namo Amida Butsu.

A significant factor in his conviction about this was his belief that people in Japan had forgotten about Śākyamuni Buddha (of course they hadn't, but that is a different story), and thus he advocated for the elimination of Pure Land Buddism, which he considered a "one-sided teaching" as it was being practiced by Honen and his disciples.

NIchiren tied some of his polemics to his belief that the practice of Pure Land Buddhism has earlier caused the suppression of Buddhism by the Taoist Emperor Wuzong (814-846) during the Tang Dynasty in China, and later on, the death in 1221 of the cloistered Japanese emperor Go-toba after he led an unsuccessful rebellion against the Kamakura Shogunate and was exiled.

The interesting thing about this is that Go-toba actually banned Honen's Pure Land school, ordering the execution of some its adherents and the banishment of Honen. There was eventually a rapprochement, where Honen signed a pledge to reign in some of his more radical students. Despite all of this, clearly Nichiren held Honen's teaching and people response to it as being responsible for the death of Go-toba.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

I don't think that Nichiren was telling people to ignore Sukhavati. His axe to grind was against Honen, the founder of the Jodo-shu sect (Honen acknowledges he founded a new school of Buddhism in his seminal Senchakushū), who he believed was leading people away from the Dharma with an undue emphasis on Nembutsu, reciting the name of Amitabha Buddha, Namo Amida Butsu.

A significant factor in his conviction about this was his belief that people in Japan had forgotten about Śākyamuni Buddha (of course they hadn't, but that is a different story), and thus he advocated for the elimination of Pure Land Buddism, which he considered a "one-sided teaching" as it was being practiced by Honen and his disciples.

NIchiren tied some of his polemics to his belief that the practice of Pure Land Buddhism has earlier caused the suppression of Buddhism by the Taoist Emperor Wuzong (814-846) during the Tang Dynasty in China, and later on, the death in 1221 of the cloistered Japanese emperor Go-toba after he led an unsuccessful rebellion against the Kamakura Shogunate and was exiled.

The interesting thing about this is that Go-toba actually banned Honen's Pure Land school, ordering the execution of some its adherents and the banishment of Honen. There was eventually a rapprochement, where Honen signed a pledge to reign in some of his more radical students. Despite all of this, clearly Nichiren held Honen's teaching and people response to it as being responsible for the death of Go-toba.

The four means of converting beings to the Dharma are generosity (which itself as four aspects: giving material gifts, conferring fearlessness, loving kindness and teaching Dharma), pleasant speech, conduct and setting an example.

What prompted this question? The answer is no. There is no way the two are compatible.

What an amazing world we live in, where one form of Buddhism is incompatible with another. Truly a degenerate age.

Oh, give it a rest. Lots of forms of Buddhism are incompatible with each other. I like DGA, but I feel like he’s trolling with these questions.

Here’s what prompted this question.

I was having a conversation with someone who proposed some kind of synthesis between pure land practices per Honen and Nichiren’s doctrines. This idea seemed confused and contradictory to me. Or... was it me that was confused? Am i missing something or misunderstanding?

To get some clarity and at the risk of exposing my own ignorance and foolishness, I went to the only place I know where I can get unvarnished answers from Nichiren and Pure Land people simultaneously. Here we are.

I’m sorry this thread feels otherwise but really the only one getting trolled is me.

Can you list some more forms of Buddhism which are incompatible with other forms of Buddhism?

Nikaya buddhism of the pali suttas and mahayana...

That's not necessarily true. For one thing, historically Mahayana has been practiced within Theravada, and even today there are instances of Mahayana and Theravada coexisting, as discussed in this thread:

I was having a conversation with someone who proposed some kind of synthesis between pure land practices per Honen and Nichiren’s doctrines. This idea seemed confused and contradictory to me. Or... was it me that was confused? Am i missing something or misunderstanding?

To get some clarity and at the risk of exposing my own ignorance and foolishness, I went to the only place I know where I can get unvarnished answers from Nichiren and Pure Land people simultaneously. Here we are.

I’m sorry this thread feels otherwise but really the only one getting trolled is me.

I thought it an interesting question, have any Pure Land folks weighed in?

This is an interesting topic. I don't know if he did or if he did not.

I do know that many of the contemporary Nichiren Buddhists I have engaged with do not view an aspiration for rebirth in Sukhavati as a good way to use the current lifetime one has. (Am I off base here?)

What an amazing world we live in, where one form of Buddhism is incompatible with another. Truly a degenerate age.

Oh, give it a rest. Lots of forms of Buddhism are incompatible with each other. I like DGA, but I feel like he’s trolling with these questions.

Can you list some more forms of Buddhism which are incompatible with other forms of Buddhism?

I think this depends on one's perspective and the views one holds. There are many contemporary Buddhists who would regard Dzogchen as incompatible with any Buddhist practice, because to their mind it ain't Buddhism.

Speaking only for myself, I think if you understand what is meant by ekayana, you can't help but rejoice in any Dharma practice anyone does, and any contradictions in doctrine can get resolved as you wind down the highway.

I think we're casting back our ideas of of the predominance of Amida's pure land onto the past. As before Honen: monks practiced to get to a variety of Pure Land and yes that was a real ongoing practice and Nichiren has the Pure Land of Tranquil Light. According to single practice Pure Land schools such as Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu there is only one important pure land (they wouldn't deny the existence of others) Kannon sama has her own Pure Land of Mt. Potalaka, and that's totally fine too!
gassho
Rory

Yes, in times past there were schools that were committed to the aspiration for birth in the Pure Land of different Buddhas, including Medicine Buddha, Akshobhya, and Maitreya. But as you know, that is not what is meant by “Pure Land” practice at present or in the main.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

This is an interesting topic. I don't know if he did or if he did not.

I do know that many of the contemporary Nichiren Buddhists I have engaged with do not view an aspiration for rebirth in Sukhavati as a good way to use the current lifetime one has. (Am I off base here?)

Apparently, one of Nicjhiren's beefs with Honen was not that Honen followed pure land sūtras, but rather, that he viewed Honen as advocating the discarding of all other sūtras besides the three pure land sūtras.

As for your second point, I agree with you that in conversations I have had with Nichiren Buddhists in the West, they generally deride Nembutsu as a false practice or irrelevant practice.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

The idea that Theravada rejects the path of bodhisattvas is a very recent one. What they reject is the Mahayana sutras, which is why their view of the bodhisattva path consists of ten perfections rather than six... Their bodhisattva path comes from a different literary tradition than ours.

The idea that Theravada rejects the path of bodhisattvas is a very recent one. What they reject is the Mahayana sutras, which is why their view of the bodhisattva path consists of ten perfections rather than six... Their bodhisattva path comes from a different literary tradition than ours.

We also have ten perfections. As far as I can tell, the Theravadin bodhisattva literature, what they have of it, is derivative of early Mahāyāna.

The main point is that arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas are all equal with respect to the eradication of afflictions.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

The idea that Theravada rejects the path of bodhisattvas is a very recent one. What they reject is the Mahayana sutras, which is why their view of the bodhisattva path consists of ten perfections rather than six... Their bodhisattva path comes from a different literary tradition than ours.

We also have ten perfections. As far as I can tell, the Theravadin bodhisattva literature, what they have of it, is derivative of early Mahāyāna.

Loppon, would you have any idea why the six perfections are most commonly heard of in East Asian Buddhism (or maybe just Zen) and not the ten? Was it the later Indian scholars like Chandrakirti that emphasized these? I know I never heard of 10 perfections in Mahayana before studying Chandrakirti, and any Zen practitioner I've ever talked to only speaks of six perfections.

The idea that Theravada rejects the path of bodhisattvas is a very recent one. What they reject is the Mahayana sutras, which is why their view of the bodhisattva path consists of ten perfections rather than six... Their bodhisattva path comes from a different literary tradition than ours.

We also have ten perfections. As far as I can tell, the Theravadin bodhisattva literature, what they have of it, is derivative of early Mahāyāna.

Loppon, would you have any idea why the six perfections are most commonly heard of in East Asian Buddhism (or maybe just Zen) and not the ten? Was it the later Indian scholars like Chandrakirti that emphasized these? I know I never heard of 10 perfections in Mahayana before studying Chandrakirti, and any Zen practitioner I've ever talked to only speaks of six perfections.

The six perfections are emphasized because they are the practice of the bodhisattvas of the impure stages. The remaining four are practices of the bodhisattvas of the pure stages.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

We also have ten perfections. As far as I can tell, the Theravadin bodhisattva literature, what they have of it, is derivative of early Mahāyāna.

Loppon, would you have any idea why the six perfections are most commonly heard of in East Asian Buddhism (or maybe just Zen) and not the ten? Was it the later Indian scholars like Chandrakirti that emphasized these? I know I never heard of 10 perfections in Mahayana before studying Chandrakirti, and any Zen practitioner I've ever talked to only speaks of six perfections.

The six perfections are emphasized because they are the practice of the bodhisattvas of the impure stages. The remaining four are practices of the bodhisattvas of the pure stages.

Nichiren asserted nembutsu as at best ineffective and at worst, destructive, and focus on Amida as an emmanation vs Sakyamuni is incorrect. I think the bulk of his polemical writings were directed at Pure Land. That said, he was a man of his time writing about issues of the day, it may be some of his language is more about personalities and a literal reading is misleading. I think Q can better address this point.

2. Is it possible to practice Nichiren's Buddhism adequately if one doesn't approve of Nichiren's teachings on particular topics, such as the appropriateness of various practices?

IMHO sure- note the various Nichiren schools. Some of the practices have evolved since Nichiren's time with the requisite skullduggery and politics, so appropriateness is often a relative thing anyhow. Adequately is an interesting term; I think that might mean the practitioner starts seeing transformation in their lives as a result of the practice. If thats happening, the SGI response would probably be "yes, adequate"- I would be surprised if the other schools would say something different though perhaps there would be disagreement related to the individual's practices eg Nichiren Shoshu would not approve of the use of an SGI gohonzon & so on.

Sure, one can practice Daimoku without forming any opinion on Pure Land. Most people have no particular first hand opinion of Pure Land, certainly outside Japan and even in Japan. And whatever people know as Pure Land now is a long way from whatever was the case in the 13th c.

I'd even argue that criticism is a provisional practice - a function of the Relative Sublime, something to be abandoned when the circumstances don't demand it any longer. Some in the Nichiren community would disagree. Many will agree.

No offense to anyone, but in the scheme of things, Buddha Dharma doesn't matter anymore. Most people are indifferent to it. What's the point in critiquing something when it has become little more than a social artifact in the vast majority of circumstances? Critiquing something that no one cares about is the definition of the pejorative sense of 'academic'. And all it does is bring ill repute to the Dharma.

In a robust Buddhist environment, there is a place for critical discussion. These days, it's great if someone sees a Buddha image and for a moment conceives an instant of appreciation, let alone joy or something more.

This is an interesting topic. I don't know if he did or if he did not.

I do know that many of the contemporary Nichiren Buddhists I have engaged with do not view an aspiration for rebirth in Sukhavati as a good way to use the current lifetime one has. (Am I off base here?)

While Malcolm's take on Nichiren is odd in referring to Gotoba and Wuzong, he's basically correct. The problem Nichiren found was the exclusivist Pure Land teachings. Some might think it ironic that he taught the exclusive Daimoku in response. This is a complex subject related to the discussion of Daimoku as definitive teaching. Simply put, Daimoku is the teaching and practice accessible to all people. It is on the continuum of the Perfect and Sudden teaching in Tiantai. It actually embraces all teachings as opened by the Sudden and Perfect. Another discussion.

There is no aspiration for Sukhavati because we have no affinity for it. That's probably where we ought to leave it. Anything more and emotions get stoked.

“Once you have given up the ghost, everything follows with dead certainty, even in the midst of chaos.”
-Henry Miller

"Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in.
Great for solving problems, after it creates the problems."
-Modest Mouse

"Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world!"
-The Grateful Dead

"And whatever people know as Pure Land now is a long way from whatever was the case in the 13th c."

Actually I've been fairly surprised at just now much documentation there still is available in regards to rituals and practices - both internal documents and statements by contemporaries. We have a pretty good idea about what was practiced, when, and how. Of course; if this is in relation to accusations of antinomianism, we have records showing that the most egregious culprits were kicked out of the movement before they did their thing. Furthermore, dated letters show that the 7 article pledge (mandating proper behavior) wasn't just reactionary.